Toom Tabard wrote:
On 23 Jul, 15:51, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Maria wrote:
Plodalong wrote:
Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged
until yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked
there for 6 months. He has been told that in law he should now
be employed by the new owner (not a brewery), but this morning
the new owner wouldn't let him in or answer the door. Can the
new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what? Does
he have rights, and what should we do next?
Thank you.
I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do
what he wants.
Doesn't he have to officially sack him or something?
No , he/she never employed him thats down to the brewery


But where a business is sold as a going concern and continues in that
business then frequently employees have rights to continuity of
employment under TUPE - they are legally employed on the same terms by
the new owner.

In this particular case he may well have been entitled to regard
himself as employed by the new owner, but they could probably dispense
with his services without him having any comeback because of his
limited service.


Sounds about right - he has the same right to be let go without notice
by the new employers as he had by the old ones.

On 23 Jul, 17:08, Toom Tabard wrote:
But where a business is sold as a going concern and continues in that
business then frequently employees have rights to continuity of
employment under TUPE - they are legally employed on the same terms by
the new owner.


TUPE only covers employees in post more than 12 months.

On 24 Jul, 07:54, Joseph Hill wrote:
On 23 Jul, 17:08, Toom Tabard wrote:

But where a business is sold as a going concern and continues in that
business then frequently employees have rights to continuity of
employment under TUPE - they are legally employed on the same terms by
the new owner.

TUPE only covers employees in post more than 12 months.

No, TUPE covers employees in post at the time of the transfer. The
lack of employment protection against dismissal for employees in post
for less than twelve months is a separate issue of other aspects of
employment legislation. But otherwise an employee with less than 12
months service is entitled to expect e.g. continuity of employment on
the same conditions, the same as other employees.

Toom

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:11:12 +0100, Maria
wrote:

Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged until
yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked there for 6
months. He has been told that in law he should now be employed by the
new owner (not a brewery), but this morning the new owner wouldn't let
him in or answer the door.
Can the new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what? Does
he have rights, and what should we do next?

Thank you.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/life/employment.htm

"Poldie" _.@._ wrote in message
...
Toom Tabard wrote:
On 23 Jul, 15:51, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Maria wrote:
Plodalong wrote:
Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged
until yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked
there for 6 months. He has been told that in law he should now
be employed by the new owner (not a brewery), but this morning
the new owner wouldn't let him in or answer the door. Can the
new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what? Does
he have rights, and what should we do next?
Thank you.
I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do
what he wants.
Doesn't he have to officially sack him or something?
No , he/she never employed him thats down to the brewery


But where a business is sold as a going concern and continues in that
business then frequently employees have rights to continuity of
employment under TUPE - they are legally employed on the same terms by
the new owner.

In this particular case he may well have been entitled to regard
himself as employed by the new owner, but they could probably dispense
with his services without him having any comeback because of his
limited service.


Sounds about right - he has the same right to be let go without notice by
the new employers as he had by the old ones.

ITYM he has the same rights NOT to be let go without notice by the new
employer, as he did by the old one.

tim

"Toom Tabard" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jul, 13:29, Plodalong wrote:
Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged until
yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked there for 6
months. He has been told that in law he should now be employed by the
new owner (not a brewery), but this morning the new owner wouldn't let
him in or answer the door.
Can the new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what? Does
he have rights, and what should we do next?

Thank you.

I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do what he
wants.

He may kave a right to regard himself as employed by the new owner
under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.

But yes, whilst a failure to continue employment under TUPE is
automatically unfair dismissal he could not claim for unfair dismissal
if employed for less than a year.

As an "automatically unfair dismissal" for a protected reason the 12 month
qualifying period does not apply

tim

On 24 Jul, 22:22, "tim....." wrote:
"Toom Tabard" wrote in message

...





On 23 Jul, 13:29, Plodalong wrote:
Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged until
yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked there for 6
months. He has been told that in law he should now be employed by the
new owner (not a brewery), but this morning the new owner wouldn't let
him in or answer the door.
Can the new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what? Does
he have rights, and what should we do next?

Thank you.

I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do what he
wants.

He may kave a right to regard himself as employed by the new owner
under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.

But yes, whilst a failure to continue employment under TUPE is
automatically unfair dismissal he could not claim for unfair dismissal
if employed for less than a year.

As an "automatically unfair dismissal" for a protected reason the 12 month
qualifying period does not apply


Are you sure? My understanding is that it is automatically unfair to
dismiss an employee for a reason connected with a transfer. (Subject
to exceptions if the reasons can be shown to be an economic,
technical or organisational reason for changes in the workforce.)
However, my understanding is that the employee (whether dismissed by
the old or new employer) will have to have worked for one year for the
business in order to be able to make a claim for unfair dismissal.

That's in my legal database and I see the same on eg
http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/emplaw/tupe/tupe.htm

"Subject to a one year qualifying period, such a dismissal will be
automatically unfair for a reason connected with the transfer unless
it is for an 'economic, technical or organisational' (ETO) reason"

Is that info wrong, or are we talking at cross-purposes?

Toom

Toom

"Toom Tabard" wrote in message
...
On 24 Jul, 22:22, "tim....." wrote:
"Toom Tabard" wrote in message

...





On 23 Jul, 13:29, Plodalong wrote:
Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged until
yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked there for 6
months. He has been told that in law he should now be employed by
the
new owner (not a brewery), but this morning the new owner wouldn't
let
him in or answer the door.
Can the new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what?
Does
he have rights, and what should we do next?

Thank you.

I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do what
he
wants.

He may kave a right to regard himself as employed by the new owner
under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.

But yes, whilst a failure to continue employment under TUPE is
automatically unfair dismissal he could not claim for unfair dismissal
if employed for less than a year.

As an "automatically unfair dismissal" for a protected reason the 12
month
qualifying period does not apply


Are you sure? My understanding is that it is automatically unfair to

I found it he

http://www.hrbullets.co.uk/unfair-di...nfairdismissal

I did suspect it was the case before I started looking, so I didn't try too
hard to find what I wanted.

But it could be wrong.

tim

On 25 Jul, 16:11, "tim....." wrote:
"Toom Tabard" wrote in message

...





On 24 Jul, 22:22, "tim....." wrote:
"Toom Tabard" wrote in message

...

On 23 Jul, 13:29, Plodalong wrote:
Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged until
yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked there for 6
months. He has been told that in law he should now be employed by
the
new owner (not a brewery), but this morning the new owner wouldn't
let
him in or answer the door.
Can the new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what?
Does
he have rights, and what should we do next?

Thank you.

I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do what
he
wants.

He may kave a right to regard himself as employed by the new owner
under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.

But yes, whilst a failure to continue employment under TUPE is
automatically unfair dismissal he could not claim for unfair dismissal
if employed for less than a year.

As an "automatically unfair dismissal" for a protected reason the 12
month
qualifying period does not apply

Are you sure? My understanding is that it is automatically unfair to

I found it he

http://www.hrbullets.co.uk/unfair-di...aticunfairdism...

I did suspect it was the case before I started looking, so I didn't try too
hard to find what I wanted.

But it could be wrong.

Okay, yes, it does refer to automatic unfair dismissal "because a
business is being sold or transferred", and that is the case. However
it doesn't mention any exception from the general case that you have
no recourse for unfair dismissal if you have less than twelve months
service. Other sources specifically say you have no recourse.

Unless there is info that the procedures/law have been changed
recently, then my understanding is that if you have less than twelve
months service in total ( the total before and after transfer) then
you have no recourse for unfair dismissal by either employer under
TUPE procedures.

Thanks

Toom

"Toom Tabard" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jul, 16:11, "tim....." wrote:
"Toom Tabard" wrote in message

...





On 24 Jul, 22:22, "tim....." wrote:
"Toom Tabard" wrote in message

...

On 23 Jul, 13:29, Plodalong wrote:
Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged
until
yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked there for
6
months. He has been told that in law he should now be employed by
the
new owner (not a brewery), but this morning the new owner
wouldn't
let
him in or answer the door.
Can the new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what?
Does
he have rights, and what should we do next?

Thank you.

I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do
what
he
wants.

He may kave a right to regard himself as employed by the new owner
under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)
Regulations.

But yes, whilst a failure to continue employment under TUPE is
automatically unfair dismissal he could not claim for unfair
dismissal
if employed for less than a year.

As an "automatically unfair dismissal" for a protected reason the 12
month
qualifying period does not apply

Are you sure? My understanding is that it is automatically unfair to

I found it he

http://www.hrbullets.co.uk/unfair-di...aticunfairdism...

I did suspect it was the case before I started looking, so I didn't try
too
hard to find what I wanted.

But it could be wrong.

Okay, yes, it does refer to automatic unfair dismissal "because a
business is being sold or transferred", and that is the case. However
it doesn't mention any exception from the general case that you have
no recourse for unfair dismissal if you have less than twelve months
service. Other sources specifically say you have no recourse.


yes it does, it says

"he or she is protected from Day 1 of employment if a dismissal is made for
one of the following reasons"

tim